It is now universally admitted that unity of command is one of the first conditions for the successful conduct of military operations, and this unity is seriously infringed if the Opposition erect themselves into a volunteer Council of War, whose advice is published to all the world. The secrecy, the rapidity, and the unity of will, which belong to a despotism, undoubtedly give it an advantage over a free Government, for the management of a This advantage is at its maximum when the sovereign is also the general, as Livy long ago pointed out. Reges, non liberi solum impedimentis omnibus, sed, domini rerum tempo'rumque, trahunt consiliis cuncta, non sequuntur.' But the disadvantage in question may be reduced to a low term by the considerate forbearance, as it may be increased unnecessarily by the factious and unreasonable impatience, of an Opposition. war. In general, the character of a free Government is that the discussions on the most important subjects of foreign and domestic policy take place in a public assembly; that all the errors of the official men, all the national disasters and calamities, all the weak points in the state of public affairs, are carefully noted and brought into prominent view, (sometimes with rhetorical amplification, and the aid of personal invective,) by the native critics of the Ministry. This constant difference of opinion upon the management of public affairs, combined with the interested struggle of rival parties contending for power, frequently exhibits a free Government in an unfavourable and undignified attitude. Its domestic quarrels are laid bare to the public observation; the momentary ebullitions of temper, the mutual reproaches called forth by wounded vanity, or by disappointed ambition, are taken down verbatim in short-hand, carefully copied out, printed in newspapers, and circulated in a few hours over the whole civilised world. Vituperation of opponents has always been one of the favourite weapons of orators. The license of invective, in which the ancient orators indulged, has been abridged by the refinement of modern manners, particularly with respect to charges affecting private life. But the eagerness of personal contention, and the jealousy of personal rivals, always lead, in deliberative assemblies, to mutual attacks of the leaders of opposite parties. Such attacks, moreover, though they may raise incidental issues unconnected with the subject of debate, and may often be introduced unnecessarily, cannot always be considered as irrelevant. Advice delivered in a deliberative assembly derives a large part of its force from the personal character of the speaker; from the confidence placed in his wisdom and integrity. An attempt to discredit his personal authority, by impugning his conduct and motives, is therefore material to the question. In a court of justice, such topics would be necessarily irrelevant; for a paid advocate does not express his private convictions, or throw his own character into the scale; and therefore a personal attack upon the advocate of the opposite party would be wholly foreign to the merits of the case. An opposition orator, who is influenced by patriotic motives, observes certain limits in his attacks on his successful rivals, and abstains from extremities which would be dangerous to the State. He feels that he has with them a common interest in sustaining the character and moral authority of the assembly to which he belongs; that he is a wheel in the same machine; and that if he arrests the action of the machinery, he destroys his own importance as well as utility. In a despotic State, there is no free discussion, and no political opposition. The public expression of opinion adverse to the Government is prevented by fear, or suppressed by force. All the indecorum, all the public scandals, of opposition criticism, all the mutual vituperations of party leaders, which occur in a free State, are therefore absent. It is this apparent and external tranquillity, this superficial calm, this abstinence from rough language, from disrespectful expressions to men in authority, this hypocritical and enforced silence, which so much captivates the admirers of an absolutist system of Government. They forget, however, that passions are not extinguished by compression, that men are not convinced by being silenced; and that when all legal outlet for dissent is rigidly closed, and all argumentative discussion is prohibited, opposition is likely to take the form of rebellion, and the musket to supply the place of the tongue and the pen. They forget, likewise, that the defects and abuses of a political system are not annihilated by being concealed. In general, publicity, if not a necessary condition, is one of the most effective means, for their correction. Publicity may have certain incidental disadvantages, particularly in foreign countries, where the truth is more liable to distortion, and where the facts are less clearly understood. But the openness of a free Government is honest, frank, and indicative of confidence in the soundness of the national institutions. What would be the result, if all the low and selfish intrigues, all the secret calumnies of rivals, all the favouritism, all the corruption, all the pillage of public funds, all the persecution of individuals, all the arbitrary imprisonments, which flourish under the shade of a despotic Court and a despotic Government, were laid bare to the world? If the disclosure of the every day proceedings of a despot and his satellites would not exhibit such a hideous picture as would shock, not only his own subjects, but the rest of the civilised world, why the trembling anxiety for concealment, why the morbid dread of publicity in every form, why the inflexible and vigilant prohibition of public discussion, why the censorship of the press, or the quasi-censorship of the press, enforced by threats, or friendly hints, more effectual even than a preliminary revision, which characterise a despotism? If the acts of a despotic Government will bear the light, why are they studiously shrouded in impenetrable darkness? According to the maxims of the Criminal Law, concealment is evidence of guilt. If all the acts of a despotic Government were fully known, the scandals and brawls of a free Government would appear mere blemishes in comparison with the abominations which would be brought to light. There is a saying of Napoleon, which is as shallow as most of his other sayings on political subjects,- that in twenty years Europe would be either Cossack or Republican. This doctrine has not (as is natural) been lost on so congenial a spirit as the Emperor Nicholas; and he has converted it into a general denunciation of all governments in which an hereditary king is controlled by a representative chamber. M. de Custine, in his excellent work on Russia, represents the Emperor as having, in a conversation with himself, made the following remark : 6 I can understand republicanism,- it is a plain and straightforward form of government, or, at least, it might be so; I can ' understand absolute monarchy, for I am myself the head of such an order of things; but I cannot understand a represent'ative monarchy; it is the government of lies, fraud, and cor'ruption; and I would rather fall back even upon China than ' ever adopt it.'* It is natural that the Emperor Nicholas should consider all constitutional restraints upon the will of the hereditary chief of a State as pernicious, and that he should proscribe them by his imperial anathema. Experience has, however, proved that a constitutional monarchy is a far more solid, durable, and substantial form of government than an absolute monarchy; and that a political opposition, though it may be an institution highly distasteful to a reigning despot, is a necessary condition for freedom and political progress. * Russia (Lond. 1854), p. 135. ART. II.-1. Esquisse Historique sur le Cardinal Mezzofanti. Par A. MANAVIT. Paris: 1853. 2. On the extraordinary Powers of Cardinal Mezzofanti as a Linguist. By THOMAS WATTS, Esq. [Proceedings of the Philological Society. January 23, 1852.] London: 1852. 3. Catalogo della Libreria dell' Eminentissimo Cardinal Giuseppe Mezzofanti. Compilato per ordine di lingue, da Filippo Bonifazi, Librajo Romano. Roma: 1851. THE HE Poet Ennius, if we believe the account of Aulus Gellius, was no little vain of his attainments as a linguist, and used to boast that he had three hearts, because he was able to speak in three tongues, the Greek, the Latin, and the Oscan.' What would the good old Father' have said, if he had had Cardinal Mezzofanti for his theme? It would be a curious physiological problem to determine what degree of physical development in the comparative scale suggested by his quaint illustration, should be taken to represent the faculty of language as it existed in this most wonderful linguist. Unfortunately, the materials for a complete and satisfactory estimate of his character and attainments are scanty and difficult of access. The printed materials are for the most part mere sketches, vague, declamatory, and often of very doubtful authenticity. M. Manavit's essay, the most recent and most ambitious of them all, is extremely meagre and barren of details; nor does it even attempt anything like a philosophical analysis of the nature or the extent of the Cardinal's acquirements, considered ethnologically. Mr. Watts' short but able and scholarlike paper read before the Philological Society, although it is far more valuable in this respect, and is exceedingly interesting as a collection of the fragmentary notices of Mezzofanti published by tourists and others during the several stages of his career, yet could not, from its very form, be expected to contain full particulars of his personal history. And, strange as it may seem, nothing deserving the name of a memoir, much less of a regular biography, has as yet appeared in Italy. It was understood for some time after the Cardinal's death, that his friend and successor in the charge of the Vatican Library, M. Laureani, was engaged in the preparation of an authentic memoir; and it is probable that this expectation (which has unhappily been frustrated by M. Laureani's death) may have deterred others from undertaking the task. Probably, too, the unsettled condition of affairs in Rome at the time of Mezzofanti's death, which occurred during the residence of the Papal Court at Gaeta, may have withdrawn public attention from what, in ordinary times, would have been a most memorable event. But, whatever may have been the occasion of this seemingly unaccountable neglect, we regret to say, that, with the exception of two or three slight and unsatisfactory notices in the newspapers and critical journals of the time, the literature of his native country, of Bologna, the place of his birth; of Modena, Florence and Naples, with all which he had long maintained the closest scientific, literary, and friendly relations; above all of Rome, where, for the last twenty years of his life, he was one of the most prominent notabilities, has not as yet produced a single record in any degree worthy of so distinguished a name. The interest, however, which attaches to such a career as that of Cardinal Mezzofanti is a thing entirely apart from the associations of friendship or of country. In one department of liberal study it is entirely without a parallel, and may well be regarded as among the most curious chapters in the annals of the human mind. It is impossible not to feel, that, independently of the interest which must attach to the personal history of any man rising to literary eminence in the face of great difficulties, there is something in the very notion of Mezzofanti's peculiar accomplishment so completely without example, as not only to deserve a permanent record, but even to invite a minute and careful philosophical investigation. It will be easily understood, therefore, that we take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the publication of the Esquisse of M. Manavit, less for its own intrinsic value, than as a means of bringing the whole subject under the notice of our readers; availing ourselves not only of the materials collected by him and by Mr. Watts, but also of much additional information, partly gleaned from the Italian and German critical journals, partly derived from personal knowledge, and from other private, but perfectly credible sources. We have included among our materials the catalogue of his limited, but exceedingly curious library. In itself it is a singularly inaccurate and unskilful compilation, and abounds with the strangest and most amusing blunders. But it is sufficiently correct to be employed as we propose; on a principle similar to that on which geologists undertake, from the vegetable remains of the several geological periods, to arrange and classify the various grades of animal life which prevailed in each, and even to describe the structure and the habits by which they were respectively distinguished. It is true that in many cases the estimate of a man's attainments derived from a consideration of the books which he has collected, would be fallacious in the last degree. There are |